sync_simulation

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark this as mutating (readOnlyHint=false) but non-destructive. The description adds useful context by indicating the action is a request to a running simulation and involves partial results, but it does not clarify whether the upload is synchronous or fire-and-forget, or what side effects on storage occur.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence with no wasted words. The action, target, and timing are all stated upfront in a compact, readable form.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity—one required integer parameter, no output schema, and informative annotations—the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It could add minor details like return behavior or prerequisites, but nothing critical is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by implying that simulation_id must refer to a currently running simulation. This adds semantic constraint beyond the schema's type/required metadata, although it does not elaborate on ID format or error conditions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Ask') with a clear resource ('a running simulation') and outcome ('upload partial results to storage now'). This distinguishes it from siblings like stop_simulation, wait_for_simulation, and user-driven upload tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the appropriate context: a simulation is running and the agent wants partial results flushed to storage now. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it name any alternative sibling like wait_for_simulation or download_results.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.